Any fresh air for Raj Bhawans?

No Supreme Court judgment had evoked as much debate in the legal circles here and elsewhere in the recent past as has done its split verdict on Bihar. While three judges have deprecated Buta Singh?s conduct, the two others have okayed it. However, Buta Singh already stands edged out of the Raj Bhawan at Patna. But, whether he alone deserved the boot is debatable.

No Supreme Court judgment had evoked as much debate in the legal circles here and elsewhere in the recent past as has done its split verdict on Bihar. While three judges have deprecated Buta Singh’s conduct, the two others have okayed it. However, Buta Singh already stands edged out of the Raj Bhawan at Patna. But, whether he alone deserved the boot is debatable.

HT Image

In public perception, one who becomes a Governor as a result of the Centre’s political patronage cannot act freely in a situation that had obtained in Bihar; rather, Delhi decides and he faithfully implements it, and also remains willing to take the rap and walk out of the Raj Bhawan, if need be, and wait for reward when the unsavoury controversy fades away from public memory. Could the case of Buta Singh have been any different?

The comments in the media on the Supreme Court’s three-against-two judgement again highlights the absence of an absolute yardstick to measure what really makes a ‘truly right’ judicial opinion; the scope of interpretation of statutes or the Constitution, based on a particular matrix of facts, is sometimes so wide and flexible that two extremely opposite, but equally convincing, judicial views, depending on the judicial perception of a judge, are possible on the same issue.

At his last week’s press conference, even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cited such differences in judicial perceptions, reflected in majority and minority judgements in Bihar’s case, to defend his own government’s perception that Buta Singh’s recommendation deserved acceptance.

There are cases where judges of a High Court take one view, and judges of another High Court express a contrary view on the same legal issue, and finally, judges of the Supreme Court uphold one view and discard the other view. Such differences occasionally pop up within the apex court itself through majority and minority judgements.

How does one then determine which of the judicial opinions is ‘correct’ and truly constitutes ‘justice’? Well, it is this unresolved riddle that often evokes analytical comments from legal brains, something visible again in Buta Singh’s case.

Such comments themselves are conflicting, and this, ironically, again depends on the critic’s own legal perception or political predilections. And the debate thus goes on, and then is forgotten! In today’s money-oriented, fast-paced life, serious issues have now lost their earlier longevity. Bihar’s case will be no different.

Well, as in the Bommai case, the apex court has again said that the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendation for appointing non-political persons of eminence as Governors deserved to adopted. This, the belief is, will take care of the misuse of the office for political objectives. However, the temptation of the ruling parties at the Centre to have a hold on states through Governors has been too overwhelming to resist.

So, even when the NDA was in power it had rejected the Sarkaria Commission’s suggestion. And then, the Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, told Parliament in March last that his UPA Government was of the same view, citing in support the opinion of the Inter-State Council and the Law Ministry. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated the same position at his press conference last week.

There is nothing wrong with a person pursuing politics earlier and now holding the Governor’s office and vice versa, he said. So, expecting some fresh air for Raj Bhawans would be unrealistic.

Finally, it could be anybody’s guess as to how long Nitish Kumar would have been able to lead a stable government on the support of time-serving defectors from Ram Vilas Paswan’s party. The President’s rule, coupled with fresh elections, yielded a massive mandate in Nitish’s favour, who, in voters’ perception, deserved sympathy for having been ‘wronged’ by Buta Singh. Nitish Kumar’s governance today has the benefit of both the popular mandate and stability.

So, rather than condemn Buta Singh, should Nitish and the BJP not be seen acknowledging the debt they owe to him? And, as for Manmohan Singh’s government, it has its own reason to smile. No more tantrums and bullying pressures from Lalu Yadav. At the end, the drama leaves behind winners and losers both!